A new report has found that 186 banks in the US are at risk of failure due to rising interest rates and a high proportion of uninsured deposits. The research, posted on the Social Science Research Network titled ‘Monetary Tightening and US Bank Fragility in 2023: Mark-to-Market Losses and Uninsured Depositor Runs?’ estimated the market value loss of individual banks’ assets during the Federal Reserve’s rate-increasing campaign. Assets such as Treasury notes and mortgage loans can decrease in value when new bonds have higher rates.
The study also examined the proportion of banks’ funding that comes from uninsured depositors with accounts worth over $250,000.
When someone comes into the emergency room with chest pain, they are not looking for a doctor who was hired based on his/her skin color, socioeconomic background, or gender identity. When there is a medical emergency, diversity, inclusion, culture, and equity do not matter. The only thing that matters when someone’s life is on the line is that the doctor is experienced in treating the emergency in an objective manner, can accurately diagnose the situation, and perform the necessary procedures with precision, while under intense pressure.
However, the next generation of doctors are not being objectively evaluated for entrance into medical school. An increasing number of medical schools are dropping objective Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) requirements and replacing them with subjective measures that place more emphasis on race, gender, and other measures of “inclusion.”
Medical schools are dropping objective academic standards to promote “diversity”
The MCAT is developed by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), and has served as a gold standard for medical school admissions. The MCAT assesses an applicant’s academic preparedness and is a critical component of medical school admissions. By putting less emphasis on the MCAT, medical schools may be overlooking qualified applicants in favor of those with less academic preparation.
Nobody could locate a single credible objective US study showing that ANY vaccine in America is safe to use. In short, the “vaccines are safe” narrative is built on faith in seriously flawed studies. It’s turtles all the way down.
There is a huge flaw in the narrative that nobody really realized existed:
The whole “vaccines are safe” narrative for the past 200 years is actually based on an assumption that all the vaccines are safe. There is actually no credible large-scale post-marketing study for any vaccine used in the US today that actually backs up this claim. It’s all based on faith in seriously flawed studies.
There isn’t a credible post-marketing objective epidemiological study for any vaccine in the US. That’s right. Not a single one.
Why isn’t there a study?
It’s not because it isn’t possible. In fact, every state in the US has the ability to do such a study.
It is because the states have never done the necessary studies nor will they expose data needed to allow the public to do the studies.
Will keeping public health data private improve clinical outcomes? No, of course not! It’s all kept hidden from view because there is no upside for them in doing the study. It can only end badly, very badly.
As Dr. Ryan Cole has often said, “You will never find what you don’t look for.”
In short, it’s time to call a spade a spade: “the Emperor has no Clothes.” It’s turtles… turtles all the way down.
The whole “vaccines are safe” narrative is built on belief and seriously flawed studies, and not on proper objective epidemiological studies which could have been easily done but were not.
If we cannot prove safety at the level of <1 death per 10M doses in children, we should not be vaccinating more kids until we have done the proper post-marketing safety study on the kids we’ve already vaccinated. The fact that no state is willing to do the study but is at the same time still recommending that kids get vaccinated should be deeply troubling to everyone. It is a symptom of a seriously out-of-control medical community that cares more about following directives from the CDC than patient safety. The rationale for vaccinating kids is nonsensical.
The most important points in this article are:
It’s all built on a house of cards. There isn’t evidence that even a single vaccine in the US is safe.
The required studies haven’t been done because data is under lock-and-key. Any state epidemiologist could surface the data. None want to.
A single honest state epidemiologist who is willing to do the right thing could change the world by setting the data free. The others who do nothing should be ashamed of themselves for allowing the truth to remain locked behind closed doors.
Hundreds of thousands of lives are lost because the FDA takes a lax approach and trusts the drug companies when they assure the FDA that the investigators didn’t believe that the drug caused any of the deaths in the treatment group.
The DTP vaccine is a perfect example of why the public health data should be exposed. Had that been done, we could have eliminated nearly 50 years of excess deaths of females who took this vaccine.
This is a long but very important article. It took me a long time to research and write. I hope you will find it valuable.
Here are the terms of the offer which expires at the end of May 2023 (so I don’t have to keep monitoring this article):
Show me the URL of any credible objective epidemiological post-marketing study done prior to May 10, 2023 (the contest launch date) that was done on people in the US which demonstrates that any of the vaccines currently in use in the US are “safe.” You can submit a single study, or if you need multiple studies in combination, that is acceptable as well.
“Safe” is defined by Paul Offit back in 2002 as causing fewer than 1 excess death per million doses across an age-standardized US population over a one year observation period post-vaccine. The population consists of those people who would normally consume that vaccine. So a vaccine which is normally given to kids would measure the excess mortality of the kids who got the vaccine over a 1 year period. A vaccine given to all ages would be a standardized distribution for the US population measured over a year. For the purposes of this challenge, the failure to detect any statistically significant safety signal in any of the analysis buckets (which must not be unreasonably broad so as to miss safety signals) shall be deemed adequate proof of safety. As an example, the Swine flu was revoked for 1 serious adverse event per 100,000 doses; it wasn’t even a death!
“Objective” means that “experts” aren’t doing causality assessments on the cause of death. The numbers should do the talking. For example, the UK ONS data were used to prove the vaccines were safe and effective. The only problem was the data was flawed so the results were unusable.
Epidemiological means in this case that the analysis is based on analyzing the death-vax records (the join between the death table and the vaccination table) as well as vaccination statistics by age range, gender, week, and vaccine type (and possibly more but that’s the minimum). However, if you know of a more accurate way than this, you are well more than welcome to use it.
“Credible post-marketing study” means, for the purpose of this offer, the study was done after the vaccine was approved by the FDA by at least one of (a) -(c) and the “obvious flaws” condition is true (i.e., no obvious flaws)
Done by a state government and published in paper or electronically,
Done by the CDC and published in paper or electronically, or
Published in a peer-reviewed medical journal anywhere in the world. AND The study does not contain obvious flaws that would discredit its conclusions, e.g., claiming that vaccines can reduce overall all-cause mortality by 30% or more without explaining the mechanism of action for that.
The study must study a minimum of at least 10M person-years over the standardized population of the vaccine.
To win, your entry in the comments must clearly identify the specific section(s) showing that the people who get the shots aren’t dying at a statistically significantly higher rate than those that don’t. This should be an easy bar since the “healthy-vaccine bias” works in your favor and you don’t have to adjust for that.
Simply respond to the pinned comment here to enter with the URL and an indicator where it shows an all-cause mortality rate of <1 per 1M.
The first one to post a qualifying entry will win $10,000. There will only be one award.
Entry order is determined by timestamps of the comment. If you modify your entry, your timestamp will be the latest timestamp.
My paid subscribers as of the 5pm on May 10, 2023 will vote to judge the contest and will select the first entry to meet the conditions.
Anyone can enter in the comments in this article.
If you make a legit entry and I fail to recognize it, my readers and the general public will hold me accountable.
My readers will also help identify if an entry satisfies the challenge by upvoting it which will make it much easier for me to find it.
In fact, the UK ONS analysis satisfies every single one of these conditions except 1) it is in the UK and 2) the underlying data is deeply flawed (and they admitted it). I’m not thrilled with the bucket choice either, but I’ll take it.
An honest society would be able to produce these studies in every state in the US easily that meets all the conditions.
The sad fact is that, as far as I know, this doesn’t exist for any state in the US, for any vaccine, ever.
He just gets personal attacks. The challenge has been out for 4 years. I’ll match his $5K so if there is a winner, I will double it for the first winner if you win before the end of June 2023.
The video is short. Take 6 minutes and watch it.
The offer is on the next slide and the details on the last slide.
For kids, COVID kills on the order of 1 child per million.
So you need a vaccine which kills fewer than 1 child per 10M doses for this to make sense (since you want to give something super safe relative to the risk).
So the fact that there is no safety data at this level for kids means that it is INSANE for the FDA and CDC to approve these vaccines without that safety data.
What are these people thinking?! I don’t know because I offered a million dollars to speak with them for four hours (no strings attached on that one), but nobody wanted to accept my offer. I totally get that… for $250,000/hr, it’s hard to justify the time. So I changed it to “name your price” and there were no takers either.
In short, without the studies I requested in hand, the CDC and FDA should have never in a million years approved these vaccines for kids.
Should we “trust” their judgment on balancing the unknown risk vs. benefit?
Absolutely not.
Consider the DTP vaccine: Four studies show that it increased all-cause mortality for females by more than 2X. That’s stunning. A 2X mortality increase is a train wreck. That should have been spotted in the trials. But it took them nearly 50 years before that vaccine was pulled from the US market. That’s how bad the safety testing is for these vaccines. It’s a %$#$# shit show.
You may ask:
How can a vaccine which doubles the risk of death not have been detected for 50 years?
The answer is simple. It’s because they used the exact same trick for the DTP vaccine in the clinical trials as they already used for the COVID vaccines:
“Sure, there were excess deaths but none of them were judged by our investigators (who are paid by us) to be caused by the vaccine.”
In the case of the COVID vaccines, the data from Pfizer Phase 3 “gold standard” clinical trial showed that people in the vaccine group were 31% more likely to die than people in the placebo group. But Pfizer said that none of the deaths were judged by their investigators to be caused by the vaccine. Here it is from their paper:
These people NEVER did the histopathology to investigate ANY of these deaths so it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to have made that statement with any amount of medical certainty. None of the doctors I know would make such a determination without these specialized stains. The FDA should have demanded this but looked the other way.
Allowing the drug companies to make these no-causality assessments without serious external review is extremely problematic. Had this one policy been changed, we could have saved hundreds of thousands of American lives. So a huge problem is:
THE FDA never held them ACCOUNTABLE to show PROOF that the drug didn’t cause any of the deaths. They are simply TRUSTING them.
Or more recently consider Vioxx. It killed an estimated 50,000 Americans. The FDA never pulled it. Merck voluntarily withdrew it 5 years later due to all the lawsuits, not because of the FDA. The FDA was asleep at the wheel. That’s how safety conscious they are.
None of my colleagues I asked knew of such a study.
A big clue for me was the analysis done in the US for the COVID vaccines. It’s terrible.
It basically sucks because the CDC doesn’t have the vaccination data of each person.
So the CDC has never been able to do a proper analysis to prove safety using their own data. They could use VSD, but that would be seriously flawed as I’ll show below.
The states, who do have the information needed for a proper analysis, may be:
not sophisticated enough to do the epidemiological studies required.
not motivated enough to do the work because there is not enough public pressure on them to do this the right way and this is hard work to get it right.
What you need is analysis like that described in my “Is it safe?” article which goes into detail about how I think the data should be made public and analyzed (and I confirmed it with professional epidemiologists I work with). Nobody in the US has ever done it this way AFAIK. That’s pretty sad. The records are not available anywhere and the states won’t do the required analyses for reasons I just noted.
They do it in the UK to some extent. The UK ONS bucket analysis is decent, much better than anything in the US I’ve seen. At least in the UK they have the right methodology; this is exactly the style of report all countries and US states should be adopting. But they are deficient in the choice of buckets and the quality of the underlying data; they undercount the unvaccinated so that the vaccines look like they work. If you know what you are doing, you can take one look at their tables and realize the data makes no sense (e.g., all cause non-COVID age-standardized mortality suddenly instantly changes dramatically when people start to get vaccinated).
Even though their data is flawed, I have enormous respect for what the UK did. They made a very credible attempt to do a proper epidemiological study and they made the full data summary public. So kudos to the UK. Still deficient (data quality and bucket choice), but scores highly (7 out of 10) for their approach which was very good. Bravo. To get a 10 out of 10, they need to release the underlying data. That is critical. That mistake caused lives. They are still not doing that. I told them how to do that and comply with the regulations and they stopped responding to me. That’s not commendable.
In the US, the best that researchers can do is use the VSD system but that is really flawed as well because it doesn’t capture all the events. It’s also hard to get access to… they keep it under lock and key. If you find anything bad, they yank your access to the system (Brian Hooker has stories he can tell you… once he got close, the CDC told him that the HMO’s didn’t like his results so they are cutting off his access).
The other problem with VSD is that there are reporting issues. For example, I remember sitting in on ACIP meetings where they showed event rates in VSD were sometimes lower than VAERS (they made the false assumption that VAERS is fully reported). There was the famous “fountain of youth” study that I’ve written about before that is unbelievably flawed (despite that it got accepted in a peer-reviewed journal). And there are only 9M people in the VSD system and not everyone gets vaccinated so it’s hard to get to the numbers you need. So I’m not impressed with VSD as a reliable source of data. Plus, because it is so controlled, only positive studies can emerge.
So basically, the US is set up for failure which means it is highly unlikely someone would get reliable data or the proper setup.
Then I checked with Harvard Professor Martin Kulldorff who I consider to be one of the world’s top epidemiologists, but also a super nice guy. Could Professor Kulldorff cite such a study which was sufficiently powered to be able to prove safety across a standardized age distribution in the US? Nope. He sure couldn’t.
So I made a calculated risk and put out my challenge knowing that I had a 99.9% chance of being right.
The CDC did a post-marketing safety study for the COVID vaccine using the secretive VSD database to prove that the vaccines are safe.
I wrote about this famous “fountain of youth” study 18 months ago. Similar to the study Dorit gave me, the CDC study was deeply flawed.
Then there was the Barda study done in an HMO in Israel. This was not a mortality study and wasn’t done in the US. The most striking thing is the pulmonary embolism claim in Fig. 3. It jumped off the page when I first saw the study used in a presentation by ACIP Chair Grace Lee. How do you explain that? PE was off the charts in VAERS (close to 1,000X normal), yet in this study, it shows that PE is reduced from baseline rates!?! (there is a small amount going over baseline within the 95% CI). Sorry, but that’s just not credible. There is too much data which is all aligned behind the “increased PE” post-vaccination; the Barda study is the only exception I’ve seen.
When I asked one of Dorit’s followers to explain the discrepancy in PE, he said it wasn’t statistically significant and that VAERS is unreliable. A nice hand-waving response, but not convincing at all.
Does the lack of proof of safety mean all vaccines are not safe?
No. It just means that nobody did the required studies to prove they are safe or not.
Without those studies, we should not assume they are safe. That is the precautionary principle of medicine.
The authorities have the data. They can provide the needed data at any time.
But they either (a) won’t make the data public or (b) they won’t do the proper objective large-scale epidemiological studies to determine whether the vaccines are safe. The lone exception I’m aware of is the UK where they did the correct type of study, but the underlying data is flawed and they refuse to make the underlying data public so that these flaws can be corrected or compensated for.
These large, post-marketing epidemiological studies on vaccine safety can easily be done by the public if the health authorities would make the necessary underlying data public (as described here). They all keep the underlying data under lock and key even though it is easy to make it public without any privacy issues.
It’s almost as if they don’t want anyone to know the truth, isn’t it?
This is a huge embarrassment to the medical community that nobody has ever pointed out that we have the data but it’s being kept secret so nobody really knows if the vaccines are safe or not.
The narrative that vaccines are safe is built on belief and/or flawed studies, not on data.
It’s an even greater embarrassment that it was an MIT engineer (who has been labeled as a liar, misinformation superspreader, creep, stupid, ignorant, etc), and not a member of the mainstream medical community, that is calling them out on it.
The bottom line is this: They have the data, but they won’t release it. It’s turtles… turtles all the way down…
What the world needs now is just one honest epidemiologist in the right position.
When I asked her, Professor Dorit Reiss was unable to locate a credible objective US study showing that ANY vaccine in America is safe to use. In short, the “vaccines are safe” narrative is built on faith in seriously flawed studies. It’s turtles all the way down.
There is a huge flaw in the narrative that nobody really realized existed:
The whole “vaccines are safe” narrative for the past 200 years is actually based on an assumption that all the vaccines are safe. There is actually no credible large-scale post-marketing study for any vaccine used in the US today that actually backs up this claim. It’s all based on faith in seriously flawed studies.
There isn’t a credible post-marketing objective epidemiological study for any vaccine in the US. That’s right. Not a single one.
Why isn’t there a study?
It’s not because it isn’t possible. In fact, every state in the US has the ability to do such a study.
It is because the states have never done the necessary studies nor will they expose data needed to allow the public to do the studies.
Will keeping public health data private improve clinical outcomes? No, of course not! It’s all kept hidden from view because there is no upside for them in doing the study. It can only end badly, very badly.
As Dr. Ryan Cole has often said, “You will never find what you don’t look for.”
In short, it’s time to call a spade a spade: “the Emperor has no Clothes.” It’s turtles… turtles all the way down.
The whole “vaccines are safe” narrative is built on belief and seriously flawed studies, and not on proper objective epidemiological studies which could have been easily done but were not.
Since we cannot prove safety at the level of <1 death per 10M doses in children, we should not be vaccinating more kids until we have done the proper post-marketing safety study on the kids we’ve already vaccinated. The fact that no state is willing to do the study but is at the same time still recommending that kids get vaccinated should be deeply troubling to everyone. It is a symptom of a seriously out-of-control medical community that cares more about following directives from the CDC than patient safety. The rationale for vaccinating kids is nonsensical.
The most important point is that a single honest state epidemiologist who is willing to do the right thing could change the world by setting the data free. The others who do nothing should be ashamed of themselves for allowing the truth to remain locked behind closed doors.
This is a long but very important article. It took me a long time to research and write. I hope you will find it valuable.
Dorit Reiss is a well-known “debunker” of anti-vax so-called misinformation spreaders like me.
When I posted my plans to increase data transparency in California, she wrote a hit piece attacking me and my article. I was surprised by her reaction because data transparency always leads to superior health outcomes. Only pharma companies or their paid shills should be attacking me for wanting to expose the truth. Nobody else.
Science is about finding truth, challenging assumptions, making hypotheses, gathering quality data, and figuring out which hypothesis best fits the observed data. No real scientist should be attacking me for asking for transparency of public health information; they should all be cheering me on. More data is always better. Anyone who attacks you for wanting to see the data is not a scientist.
So I decided to turn the tables on her in the comments section of her articleby attacking her fundamental assumption of vaccine safety and showing it is all based on a belief or in believing deeply flawed studies rather than the proper studies (such as the UK has attempted to do).
I wanted to expose to the world that her belief in the safety of vaccines is not based on credible data, i.e., I wanted to show that the “vaccines are safe Emperor” has no clothes.
At first she directed me to a list of articles and none of them were responsive to my request. Next, she cited a deeply flawed study that she said was “just for fun.”
I repeated my request was serious and this was a serious issue, and she confirmed that her answers were serious.
She failed to respond with a document that met the objectives because the data simply isn’t there.
None of her readers could find a credible objective large epidemiological study done in the US showing that any US vaccine is safe either.
I just got off the phone with Dr. Peter McCullough who is a walking encyclopedia of studies and he wasn’t aware of any credible study either for large-scale vaccine safety.
So let’s see if any of my readers can find one!
Here are the terms of the offer which expires at the end of May 2023 (so I don’t have to keep monitoring this article):
Show me the URL of any credible objective epidemiological post-marketing study done prior to May 10, 2023 (the contest launch date) that was done on people in the US which demonstrates that any of the vaccines currently in use in the US are “safe.”
“Safe” is defined by Paul Offit back in 2002 as causing fewer than 1 excess death per million doses across an age-standardized US population over a one year observation period post-vaccine. The population consists of those people who would normally consume that vaccine. So a vaccine which is normally given to kids would measure the excess mortality of the kids who got the vaccine over a 1 year period. A vaccine given to all ages would be a standardized distribution for the US population measured over a year. For the purposes of this challenge, the failure to detect any statistically significant safety signal in any of the analysis buckets (which must not be unreasonably broad so as to miss safety signals) shall be deemed adequate proof of safety.
“Objective” means that “experts” aren’t doing causality assessments on the cause of death. The numbers should do the talking. For example, the UK ONS data were used to prove the vaccines were safe and effective. The only problem was the data was flawed so the results were unusable.
Epidemiological means in this case that the analysis is based on analyzing the death-vax records (the join between the death table and the vaccination table) as well as vaccination statistics by age range, gender, week, and vaccine type (and possibly more but that’s the minimum).
“Credible post-marketing study” means, for the purpose of this offer, the study was done after the vaccine was approved by the FDA by at least one of (a) -(c) and the “obvious flaws” condition is true (i.e., no obvious flaws)
Done by a state government and published in paper or electronically,
Done by the CDC and published in paper or electronically, or
Published in a peer-reviewed medical journal anywhere in the world. AND The study does not contain obvious flaws that would discredit its conclusions (for an example of what I mean by this, see the text below).
The study must study a minimum of at least 10M person-years over the standardized population of the vaccine.
To win, your entry in the comments must clearly identify the specific section(s) showing that the people who get the shots aren’t dying at a statistically significantly higher rate than those that don’t. This should be an easy bar since the “healthy-vaccine bias” works in your favor and you don’t have to adjust for that.
The first one to post a qualifying entry will win $1,000. There will only be one award.
Entry order is determined by timestamps of the comment. If you modify your entry, your timestamp will be the latest timestamp.
My paid subscribers as of the 5pm on May 10, 2023 will vote to judge the contest and will select the first entry to meet the conditions.
Anyone can enter in the comments in this article.
If you make a legit entry and I fail to recognize it, my readers and the general public will hold me accountable.
My readers will also help identify if an entry satisfies the challenge by upvoting it which will make it much easier for me to find it.
In fact, the UK ONS analysis satisfies every single one of these conditions except 1) it is in the UK and 2) the underlying data is deeply flawed (and they admitted it). I’m not thrilled with the bucket choice either, but I’ll take it.
An honest society would be able to produce these studies in every state in the US easily that meets all the conditions.
The sad fact is that, as far as I know, this doesn’t exist for any state in the US, for any vaccine, ever.
For kids, COVID kills on the order of 1 child per million.
So you need a vaccine which kills fewer than 1 child per 10M doses for this to make sense (since you want to give something super safe relative to the risk).
So the fact that there is no safety data at this level for kids means that it is INSANE for the FDA and CDC to approve these vaccines without that safety data.
What are these people thinking?! I don’t know because I offered a million dollars to speak with them for four hours (no strings attached on that one), but nobody wanted to accept my offer. I totally get that… for $250,000/hr, it’s hard to justify the time. So I changed it to “name your price” and there were no takers either.
In short, without the studies I requested in hand, the CDC and FDA should have never in a million years approved these vaccines for kids.
Should we “trust” their judgment on balancing the unknown risk vs. benefit?
Absolutely not.
Consider the DTP vaccine: Four studies show that it increased all-cause mortality for females by more than 2X. That’s stunning. A 2X mortality increase is a train wreck. That should have been spotted in the trials. But it took them nearly 50 years before that vaccine was pulled from the US market. That’s how bad the safety testing is for these vaccines. It’s a %$#$# shit show.
You may ask:
How can a vaccine which doubles the risk of death not have been detected for 50 years?
The answer is simple. It’s because they used the exact same trick for the DTP vaccine in the clinical trials as they already used for the COVID vaccines:
“Sure, there were excess deaths but none of them were judged by our investigators (who are paid by us) to be caused by the vaccine.”
In the case of the COVID vaccines, the data from Pfizer Phase 3 “gold standard” clinical trial showed that people in the vaccine group were 31% more likely to die than people in the placebo group. But Pfizer said that none of the deaths were judged by their investigators to be caused by the vaccine. Here it is from their paper:
These people NEVER did the histopathology to investigate ANY of these deaths so it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to have made that statement with any amount of medical certainty. None of the doctors I know would make such a determination without these specialized stains. The FDA should have demanded this but looked the other way.
Allowing the drug companies to make these no-causality assessments without serious external review is extremely problematic. Had this one policy been changed, we could have saved hundreds of thousands of American lives. So a huge problem is:
THE FDA never held them ACCOUNTABLE to show PROOF that the drug didn’t cause any of the deaths. They are simply TRUSTING them.
Or more recently consider Vioxx. It killed an estimated 50,000 Americans. The FDA never pulled it. Merck voluntarily withdrew it 5 years later due to all the lawsuits, not because of the FDA. The FDA was asleep at the wheel. That’s how safety conscious they are.
None of my colleagues I asked knew of such a study.
A big clue for me was the analysis done in the US for the COVID vaccines. It’s terrible.
It basically sucks because the CDC doesn’t have the vaccination data of each person.
So the CDC has never been able to do a proper analysis to prove safety using their own data. They could use VSD, but that would be seriously flawed as I’ll show below.
The states, who do have the information needed for a proper analysis, may be:
not sophisticated enough to do the epidemiological studies required.
not motivated enough to do the work because there is not enough public pressure on them to do this the right way and this is hard work to get it right.
What you need is analysis like that described in my “Is it safe?” article which goes into detail about how I think the data should be made public and analyzed (and I confirmed it with professional epidemiologists I work with). Nobody in the US has ever done it this way AFAIK. That’s pretty sad. The records are not available anywhere and the states won’t do the required analyses for reasons I just noted.
They do it in the UK to some extent. The UK ONS bucket analysis is decent, much better than anything in the US I’ve seen. At least in the UK they have the right methodology; this is exactly the style of report all countries and US states should be adopting. But they are deficient in the choice of buckets and the quality of the underlying data; they undercount the unvaccinated so that the vaccines look like they work. If you know what you are doing, you can take one look at their tables and realize the data makes no sense (e.g., all cause non-COVID age-standardized mortality suddenly instantly changes dramatically when people start to get vaccinated).
Even though their data is flawed, I have enormous respect for what the UK did. They made a very credible attempt to do a proper epidemiological study and they made the full data summary public. So kudos to the UK. Still deficient (data quality and bucket choice), but scores highly (7 out of 10) for their approach which was very good. Bravo. To get a 10 out of 10, they need to release the underlying data. That is critical. That mistake caused lives. They are still not doing that. I told them how to do that and comply with the regulations and they stopped responding to me. That’s not commendable.
In the US, the best that researchers can do is use the VSD system but that is really flawed as well because it doesn’t capture all the events. It’s also hard to get access to… they keep it under lock and key. If you find anything bad, they yank your access to the system (Brian Hooker has stories he can tell you… once he got close, the CDC told him that the HMO’s didn’t like his results so they are cutting off his access).
The other problem with VSD is that there are reporting issues. For example, I remember sitting in on ACIP meetings where they showed event rates in VSD were sometimes lower than VAERS (they made the false assumption that VAERS is fully reported). There was the famous “fountain of youth” study that I’ve written about before that is unbelievably flawed (despite that it got accepted in a peer-reviewed journal). And there are only 9M people in the VSD system and not everyone gets vaccinated so it’s hard to get to the numbers you need. So I’m not impressed with VSD as a reliable source of data. Plus, because it is so controlled, only positive studies can emerge.
So basically, the US is set up for failure which means it is highly unlikely someone would get reliable data or the proper setup.
Then I checked with Harvard Professor Martin Kulldorff who I consider to be one of the world’s top epidemiologists, but also a super nice guy. Could Professor Kulldorff cite such a study which was sufficiently powered to be able to prove safety across a standardized age distribution in the US? Nope. He sure couldn’t.
So I made a calculated risk and put out my challenge knowing that I had a 99.9% chance of being right.
I was asking Dorit to show me a study similar to what the UK ONS did for COVID, but for any US vaccine. Should that be so hard?
I also asked how keeping the data secret improves clinical outcomes. Nobody touched the second question for some reason.
Initially, Dorit directed me to a page at the CDC saying the answer was there in the 2017 section without specifying the paper. I guessed she had nothing because if there was a paper there, she would have named it rather than risk me getting the wrong study.
I called her bluff. I read every paper in that section page and I told her that none of the papers were responsive. Again, I told her I wanted at least one paper showing I’m wrong. Note: I’d even take multiple papers if she had requested that which she never did.
I read the paper. It was total garbage (I’ll explain why below). At that point, I said game over. You couldn’t find a paper showing safety. She’s basically throwing junk at me that I assume she believes is solid science.
After I posted a message to see what her other readers thought of the paper, my post was removed! Is that how scientific debate is done?
And this isn’t “just for fun.”
People’s lives are at stake and a cavalier attitude about safety issues is totally inappropriate.
To show safety at a level of 1 in 1M, ideally you’d want at least 10M person-years minimum in the study (not 2M) so that the numbers are large enough to show significance, i.e., at least 10 deaths. And you can’t do it with just a narrow age group observed over a bucket of just 30 days; you have to break up the 30 day period after the shot into smaller buckets. They said they looked at bucket sizes before going for the 30 day size, but I’d have liked to have seen this data.
Here are the major red flags that pop out immediately when you read the paper:
Of the 59 deaths with medical records available for review, the team of CDC physicians confirmed the cause of death in 53 cases and found no relationship between vaccination and death.
It’s always very problematic to rely on something like this.
The study needs to be objective. It should not rely on CDC judgment calls at all. This is always a mistake. Judgment calls led to 50 years of elevated deaths from the DTP vaccine.
Judgment calls on the deaths in the Phase 3 trials were also used to deem the COVID vaccines “safe.” Post-marketing, the CDC was completely inept at assessing causality. They couldn’t find a single person who died from the mRNA COVID vaccine even after an estimated 500,000 people died from the vaccine. As far as anyone knows, they never did the required tissue stains to assess whether the vaccine might have caused the death. Why would they not do this?
Now let’s go to Table 1… Check out the RR column values:
Wow. Just wow.
This table shows that taking any vaccine (except for the HPV vaccine which is super deadly) makes you less likely to die compared to not taking the vax: it cuts your risk in half (plus or minus). There is no way this is possible. This is crazy stupid. For the MCV4 vax, you’re looking at a 71% reduction in risk of death.
This is in a peer-reviewed journal!?!?! STOP right here.
This shows the study is just complete crap.
Look, if this study was true, every kid would be getting the MCV4 vaccine every month. And there would be a HUGE mortality advantage to being vaccinated.
So you have to have a non-working brain to take this study seriously. There is absolutely no mechanism of action that could explain this. If there was, the drug companies would package this as an immortality drug in a nanosecond (and ignore the immunogenicity). So not even the drug companies believe this bullshit.
Then comes the killer. The most devastating part of the paper that blows the entire paper to pieces:
Recently, deaths immediately after 4vHPV vaccination have garnered intense media attention. Often, these media stories do not take into account the background rates of death in older children and young adults or disclose the potential for non–vaccine-related causes of death. In our study, 13 deaths were identified after 4vHPV vaccine among individuals 9 to 26 years of age within the 0- to 30-day risk window, a rate of 11.7 deaths per 100 000 person-years. This is significantly lower than what would be expected in this age group regardless of vaccination. The National Center for Health Statistics found the 2011 death rate for all causes among persons 15 to 24 years to be 67.6 deaths per 100 000 people.
OK. The study was deeply flawed, but this takes “deeply flawed” to a whole new level.
This could be the most preposterous statement I’ve ever read in a paper.
The HPV vaccine which is definitely killing people at much higher rates than other vaccines (like 2.5X) is basically causing people vaccinated with HPV to be REDUCING ACM BY 6X vs. an unvaccinated person?!?!?! NFW. And the other vaccines were shown to provide even more of an all-cause mortality benefit.
The HPV vax is super-dangerous. At the time it came out, it was the COVID vax of the time but way worse: there were 3X more VAERS adverse event reports for this vax than all the vaccines in VAERS combined (see Turtles, p. 114). This vaccine is a complete shitshow for serious adverse events (including deaths). Read Turtles pages 112-119; you’ll be appalled.
In the VAERS search below, the ratio of deaths between the flu vaccine vs. the HPV vaccine is 2.5X higher risk whereas in the Table above it’s 2.9X higher risk so they are in the same ballpark. So the magnitude and direction is consistent: HPV is way more deadly than the flu shot. At least they got that right!
HPV is 61 deaths vs. FLU at 24 deaths. Ratio is 2.5. Note: for simplicity, I didn’t research the number of doses; I was just getting a ballpark sanity check.
So the study she supplied was just so deficient on so many levels. It shouldn’t be taken seriously even for the age group. Yet Dorit appeared to have absolutely no problem citing this study as proof the vaccines are safe! And none of her readers had a problem with the paper either.
Remember: this was the very best she could do. I gave her one shot and this was her best shot.
And not only that, we know the flu vax isn’t safe at all whereas the paper says it is. I’ll explain in the next paragraph.
For the flu specifically, the study says it reduces your risk of death by >2X vs not being vaccinated. Someone’s wrong. Like I said, a 2X ACM reduction is insane. Not credible.
It appears to me that Dorit’s beliefs in the safety of vaccines were predicated on trust in authority rather than seeing the data. When I asked her to provide a compliant study, she failed. Shouldn’t she have known of one study? After she gave me a flawed paper that couldn’t possibly be accurate it made me wonder: is the type of quality study she uses to justify her position on vaccine safety?
Of course, now that this is pointed out to her that there are no credible safety studies, I don’t think it will change her views. My guess is that she will simply find a way to rationalize away the cognitive dissonance that I just created.
You can see the whole conversation here if you scroll down to the comments. It’s a riot. The benefit to me was that it helped me find any ambiguities in my article.
My suggestion is you don’t engage because there is an excellent chance your comment will be immediately deleted.
Here are a few highlights.
Generally, when I asked for the data, I received insults mixed in with a response that doesn’t meet the criteria I set:
So she apparently had no clue that the study she provided to me was not credible.
I asked her for clarification on the study she provided as to whether it was “just for fun” or she was serious. It appears she wasn’t joking as you can see here:
Bottom line: I asked for just one study, and she argues that she sent in multiple studies and I rejected multiple studies as not being “one” study. That’s preposterous. This is her “real Scotsman” reference (claiming that she gave multiple studies vs. the one I asked for).
None of the studies she provided met the criteria so I simply asked for one so I could show that even her “best” example didn’t satisfy the question at all.
The CDC did a post-marketing safety study for the COVID vaccine using the secretive VSD database to prove that the vaccines are safe.
I wrote about this famous “fountain of youth” study 18 months ago. Similar to the study Dorit gave me, the CDC study was deeply flawed.
Then there was the Barda study done in an HMO in Israel. This was not a mortality study and wasn’t done in the US. The most striking thing is the pulmonary embolism claim in Fig. 3. It jumped off the page when I first saw the study used in a presentation by ACIP Chair Grace Lee. How do you explain that? PE was off the charts in VAERS (close to 1,000X normal), yet in this study, it shows that PE is reduced from baseline rates!?! (there is a small amount going over baseline within the 95% CI). Sorry, but that’s just not credible. There is too much data which is all aligned behind the “increased PE” post-vaccination; the Barda study is the only exception I’ve seen.
When I asked one of Dorit’s followers to explain the discrepancy in PE, he said it wasn’t statistically significant and that VAERS is unreliable. A nice hand-waving response, but not convincing at all.
Does the lack of proof of safety mean all vaccines are not safe?
No. It just means that nobody did the required studies to prove they are safe or not.
Without those studies, we should not assume they are safe. That is the precautionary principle of medicine.
The authorities have the data. They can provide the needed data at any time.
But they either (a) won’t make the data public or (b) they won’t do the proper objective large-scale epidemiological studies to determine whether the vaccines are safe. The lone exception I’m aware of is the UK where they did the correct type of study, but the underlying data is flawed and they refuse to make the underlying data public so that these flaws can be corrected or compensated for.
These large, post-marketing epidemiological studies on vaccine safety can easily be done by the public if the health authorities would make the necessary underlying data public (as described here). They all keep the underlying data under lock and key even though it is easy to make it public without any privacy issues.
It’s almost as if they don’t want anyone to know the truth, isn’t it?
This is a huge embarrassment to the medical community that nobody has ever pointed out that we have the data but it’s being kept secret so nobody really knows if the vaccines are safe or not.
The narrative that vaccines are safe is built on belief and/or flawed studies, not on data.
It’s an even greater embarrassment that it was an MIT engineer (who has been labeled as a liar, misinformation superspreader, creep, stupid, ignorant, etc), and not a member of the mainstream medical community, that is calling them out on it.
The bottom line is this: They have the data, but they won’t release it. It’s turtles… turtles all the way down…
What the world needs now is just one honest epidemiologist in the right position.
(Natural News) The Biden regime continues to use the lie of human-caused “climate change” to foist unreliable and expensive electric vehicles on as many Americans as possible while also reducing our reliance on time-saving home appliances.
Under the guise of ‘fighting climate change,’ the regime has now proposed new regulations that target some of the most commonly used household appliances, including dishwashers. According to Fox Business, the Department of Energy has proposed new rules that would reduce the current limits for water and energy use in dishwashers.
The proposed rules would limit dishwashers to using 3.2 gallons of water per cycle, significantly lower than the current limit of 5 gallons, and manufacturers would need to reduce their products’ energy consumption by almost 30 percent. Even though most dishwashers available on the market already meet or exceed the current federal standards, the proposed rules have left some questioning why the Biden administration is focusing on such regulations rather than other priorities.
“Dishwashers are not the only appliances Biden’s DOE has set its sights on, however, as the regulator is also considering crackdowns on washers, dryers and refrigerators that manufacturers say could reduce performance,” Fox Business noted further.
Members of the regime have been clear: The rule changes pertain to Biden’s ‘climate agenda.’
“Collectively these energy efficiency actions … support President Biden’s ambitious clean energy agenda to combat the climate crisis,” the DOE wrote earlier this year.
“This Administration is using all of the tools at our disposal to save Americans money while promoting innovations that will reduce carbon pollution and combat the climate crisis,” Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm stated in a Friday news release.
Critics have also poked major holes in the regime’s claim that the new rules are going to save American consumers oodles of money each year.
“The department estimates that consumers will save $3 billion over the next 30 years, or $100 million per year, on their utility bills thanks to the rougher rules,” Christian Britschgi wrote at Reason. “That’s a pretty small per capita savings when spread across the 89 million dishwasher-owning households.”
In fact, he noted that the new rules actually might lead to more water use:
The new regulations might lead to more water usage as individuals switch to washing dishes by hand, Britschgi pointed out, citing research from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).
The think tank’s proposal led President Donald Trump’s administration to approve a new class of dishwashers that clean dishes in one hour, though Biden’s team repealed the pro-consumer regulatory agenda of his predecessor.
The proposed dishwasher regulations follow a recent debate over gas stoves at the national level. Despite Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s reassurances that there is nothing to be concerned about, just last week his home state of New York prohibited gas stoves.
“Nobody is taking away your gas stove,” Schumer tweeted in early February. “Shameless and desperate MAGA Republicans are showing us they will cook up any distraction to divert from real issues the American people want solved, like the debt ceiling.”
“Nevertheless, New York lawmakers agreed to ban gas stove hookups in all future buildings in late April. The ban will affect new construction on small buildings in 2025 and move on to larger buildings by 2028,” Fox Business added.
In a statement last month, Consumer Product Safety Commission Commissioner Richard Trumka Jr., a Democratic activist and labor union leader, suggested that stoves could pose a “hidden hazard” to users and that “any option is on the table.” However, after receiving backlash, Chairman Alex Hoehn-Saric clarified that the agency had no plans to ban stoves.
But in February, the Energy Department went ahead with a new proposal that would allow government regulators to write energy consumption standards for the appliances, the Daily Wire reported.
(Natural News) For several decades now, we have been told that recycling plastic is much better for the environment than simply trashing it – but is that actually true?
New research published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances casts a shadow of doubt on the merits of plastic recycling, which appear to be massively overblown and possibly even fraudulent.
To claim that recycling plastic helps to protect the environment is simply not true, the study essentially found. And the reason has to do with the generation of microplastics, which now pollute oceans, lakes, streams and rivers, and even farms where food is grown.
Researchers both from Scotland and Canada collected and tested water samples at a recycling plant. They found that the water, which is used to clean plastic before it gets recycled, is loaded with toxic microplastics.
Once a plastic bottle is washed, the next step in the recycling process is to shred and melt it into pellets, which are then reformed to create new plastics. The problem is that this process generates a lot of microplastics, which persists in the water and flows down to the local wastewater treatment plant.
Since many wastewater treatment plants are ill-equipped to filter out microplastics, all that hidden, microscopic waste ends up flooding into the environment.
(Related: Some cities have even resorted to burning recyclables since nobody seems to want to accept the raw material for processing anymore.)
Microplastics go straight through filtration systems, especially at the micron level
At the plants tested, water was used four times to clean the plastic before recycling. And researchers discovered the presence of micron-sized plastic particles in all four water samples used during each step of the cleaning process.
In some cases, the water used to clean plastic at recycling plants never even makes it to a wastewater treatment plant, and is instead just dumped directly into the environment or repurposed as irrigation water.
All in all, the team estimated that 6.5 million pounds of microplastics are released into the environment every single year, all thanks to the recycling of plastics. Were all that plastic simply tossed into a landfill, it would not have the opportunity to taint water supplies and cause all kinds of health problems in humans and animals.
Furthermore, the team evaluated a recycling plant that had installed a special filtration system to capture microplastics. That system captured about 50 percent of the particles, which is hardly enough to be satisfactory.
Not only that, but the team only tested for microplastics down to a size of 1.6 microns. It turns out that microplastics can be a whole lot smaller than even that, which means the true concentration of microplastics in even filtered water is still disturbingly high.
Prior research has shown that some microplastics are so small that they are capable of entering individual cells in an animal’s body. We can only assume that the same is true of individual cells in humans, which are more than likely contaminated with microplastics as well.
“Thank you, greenies, for making things worse once again,” wrote one upset commenter, pointing out that the farce of recycling “was obvious from the very beginning.”
Another took a less harsh approach, making the assumption that those in favor of recycling mean well but are simply misinformed about its alleged benefits for planet and people.
“Washing recycled plastic and not measuring the microplastic detritus is scandalous on its own, but to then let that water to flow out into the continuum and be surprised at the consequences” is ludicrous, this person added.
“Why not melt the plastic into useful products without washing the microplastics into the continuum?” this person further questioned.
